EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9592, 26 July 1907, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Mr W. SETH-Sitrrn has essayed the task of making clear the intent of his letter which appeared in our Tuesday's issue, but the result cannot be" pronounced an impressive success. We, however, now learn that he did not intend to chide farmers for indifference with respect to the Farmers' Union, but to chide us for encouraging that indifference, and we suppose that we ought to sit rebuked and bear the admonition in a spirit of humility and thankfulness that it'has administered in such indefinite terms as to be unrecognisable until duly labelled "this is a rebuke,'' after the manner that the Yankee showman ticketed' his doubtful exhibits. But we cannot bring ourselves to the condition of humility, that our eorrespoiident would doubtless like to see us occupy, for we deny the justice of ■ bis ineffectual impeachment against us of having encouraged indifference with reference to the discussion of the freehold question or any other subject of public moment. What we have-done has been to explain why the Farmers' Union has failed to gain the adhesion of farmers generally. We disputed the right of Mr Seth-Smith to chide the farmers for declining to give to the Union's party courses even the semblance of sanction" that might be deduced from attendance at a meeting that was never intended for a full, free, and fair discussion, of the subject. We are pleased 'x>.-learn that Mr Seth-Smith bad no intention of rebuking the farmers for in-, difference to the Union,'and we must ac : cept his disclaimer as an acknowledgment that there was no occasion for administering to them a rebuke. Perhaps a little carm reflection and introspection will causeMr Seth-Smith to,' recognise also that he had no warrant for charging us with "encouraging indifference." At anyrate we challenge him to show that we said one word by way of suggestion that anyone should decline to attend Mr Mathieson's meeting, though we knew perfectly well that it was not a meeting for a full discussion of the subject, the hour for which it was convened precluding the possibility of such a thing. We are under an obligation to Mr Seth-Smith for his acknowledg. nieut that "the leaders of the Union are largely in sympathy with Mr Massey's uarty. ' We have said so on many occasions, and if Mr iSeth-Smith w.ii-1 now frankly admit the further fact that those leaders have endeavored to use the. Union, for party purposes and so reduce it to the Jevei of" a political organisation be will do something to promote the cause of plain, honest dealing by assisting to tear awav the mask ox deceit behind which they" have endoavoied to bide their true purpose. He is unfortunate in appealing to "the majority vote at Windsor" as evidence oi the existence of a desire on the. nart oi the tenants to secure the option of the freehold. There was no "majority vote" at Windsor, for only one side was put to the meeting and those antagonistic to the cut and-dtied Union motion were not afforded an opportunity of registering their dissent. It was, we believe, an accidental omission on the part of the chairman, but as the majority in the room did not vote at all. to write of the .result as a "majontv vote" is. to put it mildly, to manifest "a remarkable luck of appreciation of the fitness of terms. It is quite refreshing to find Mr Seth-Smith admitting that the Union has championed the proposal to give the. Crown tenants "the option of the freehold on- equally favorable terms as those of the lease,"" which, we take it, is another way oi saying that the freehold should Le granted at the otiginai valuation. It also affords encouragement for a hope that Mr Seth-Smith will yet denounce the policy ofthe Union to find him admitting that the proposal is antagonistic to the interests of the .people. - Having reached that stage of enlightenment he will, no doubt, in time recognise the immorality of attempting to bribe the Crown tenants", as the Opposition and their ally the Farmers' Union are doing, by offering them, at the expense of the people genelallv, the freehold of holdings already acquired on exceptionally advantageous conditions of lease. Mr Seth-Smith is on the way to conversion, and we hope to find the process of reclamation complete when he favors us with his exposition of "a view on national management of national freeholds." We can assure him that we are already deriving much anticipatory pleasure from the contemplation of the enUiihtennicnt and enjoyment that his promised communication will afford.